Sequester squabble

In response to “Cuts in place, Obama and GOP brace for next fight” (March 3): Is there any way that we can move away from the government cutting spending and start investing taxpayer money to improve our transportation system along with updating our superstructure so that we can leave a nation to our children that is workable and something to be proud of? These endeavors also pay for themselves and create a long-term form of income. Case in point: the Coronado bridge. – Allen F. Dziuk, Carlsbad

I can’t tell you how many people I’ve seen saying that the sequester is not that big of a deal and is only 2.5 percent of the federal budget. The fact of the matter is that as San Diegans we should be worried. While these cuts may seem small, they are done in many of the wrong places. We have to remember that these cuts were designed to be so bad that they would scare congress into making a deal. Now the effects won’t be immediate or completely catastrophic, but they will hurt, at least in San Diego. I, myself, work for a defense contractor here in San Diego, and for the past few weeks I have been hearing everyone talking about the sequester and how it will affect our work. We know that we will feel the sequester here and the rest of San Diego will probably follow. – Wassim K. Alsafi, Rancho Bernardo

How much we’ve changed.

In the 1990s, President Clinton: “I feel your pain.”

In 2013 President Obama – I want to make your pain as unbearable as I can until you see things my way and give me another round of tax increases this year.

This is what passes for leadership now. – John J. Klak, San Diego

In response to “U.S. releases immediate aid to Egypt” (March 4): Secretary of State Kerry confirmed what politicians have known for some time. The American taxpayer is the most stupid person on Earth. The secretary of Homeland Security announces on TV that because of a 2 percent cut in the national budget we will no longer have secure borders and releases an unknown number of detainees to prove the point. TSA says security check-in lines will increase by 30 minutes or more and flights will be delayed because of a 2 percent budget cut. We ground entire aircraft wings; quit maintaining ships; and who knows what else because of budget cuts. Babies will go hungry and old people will die. Doom and gloom. We have no money but Secretary of State Kerry can come up with $250 million dollars to give to Egypt. How many border agents can be hired for $250 million dollars? Case proven taxpayers are stupid. – Ray Bender, Mission Beach

Ho-hum? Chicken Little?

Looks like the politicians have underestimated the public intelligence in seeing that all the rhetoric about the sky falling is just scare tactics.

Honestly, reducing the budget by a paltry 2 percent just isn’t big news. With so much waste in government spending and perks for politicians who cares anymore?

Only the things that would impact people the most have been targeted, not all the other unnecessary spending that hasn’t even been mentioned.

Gives me hope. – Bill Ketchum, San Diego

Jeanette Steele’s [story], “How much should we be spending on the military?” (SD In Depth, March 3), was particularly informative and thought-provoking. What seems obvious is that we need to reorder our priorities in this new era of economic changes we find ourselves in today.

We have over 100,000 troops in Germany and Japan alone, and have a military presence in over 150 countries in the world.

If we want to adjust our economic output for the military, how about we start with getting our troops out of countries where they are not needed and see an immediate dividend of tens of billions of dollars we need for feeding the poor, taking of our elderly, and educating out children.

Naw, forget it. It makes too much sense. – Greg Morrill, Escondido

It only takes $85 billion to: pay most of the [Defense Department] civilian workers, run practically the entire Department of Forestry, employ most of the food inspectors at the Department of Agriculture, pay all the people in Head Start, support dependents of the military, man the airport control towers, staff the airport passenger gestapo and keep the Coast Guard and the Border Patrol on the job. All this for only 2.4 percent of the total in trillions of dollars for one year!

Instead, why not just cut out all of the congressional pork-barrel appropriations? – Hidegard Anderson, San Marcos

In response to “Budget cuts to defense will sting, but S.D. has seen worse” (March 3): A really brilliant statement: “The cuts are coming because the federal government is spending more than taking in and some are concerned that carrying a large deficit is bad for the country’s economy.”

This has been a normal attitude for the average American family for ages. If we don’t have it, we can’t spend it.

Why can’t our government leaders understand that simple formula.

Notice there are no federal cuts to the federal governments payrolls or perks. All those perks alone that are common day to day actions could reduce the budget by many millions. – F. Ralph Sprecco, Lakeside